User talk:Stevie fae Scotland/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Stevie fae Scotland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Stevie fae Scotland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 16:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Stevie

Your point at Talk:St. Mirren F.C.#Requested_move_20_January_2016 about the dots in "F.C." being inappropriate may have some merit. My objection is that because it's an initialism rather an abbreviation, it's a separate issue to the dot "St.". The MoS is very clear about the dot in "St.", and I see no reason to hold the correction of that problem as a hostage to any other changes in policy or usage.

Having looked at some parallels, I see that articles rugby clubs are overwhelmingly named "Foo RFC" (without any dots). For example:

Category:New Zealand rugby union teams -- no dots
Category:Irish rugby union teams -- 10 use dots, but 80 use "RFC"
Category:English rugby union teams -- 43 use dots, but 125 use "RFC" or "RUFC"
Category:Scottish rugby union teams -- zero use dots, but 89 use "RFC" or "RUFC"

I don't see any reason for the non-dotted form to predominate in rugby, not not in association football. This may have been discussed before -- a check in the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football would be wise -- but unless I am missing something, I think that an RFC on this would probably stand a good chance of getting a consensus to remove the dots from "FC". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I totally agree. Perhaps we should just bring it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and see if there has been a past discussion about it and if not I'd definitely support changing to 'FC' and can't see why others wouldn't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad we agree, Stevie!

We disagree on a few other things, but it's nice to find something where we are on the same page.

I don't have the energy to open such a discussion myself, but if you want to kick it off, just {{ping}} me and I will be happy to support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Livingston F.C. does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! IagoQnsi (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You are cordially invited to the next Edinburgh Wiki Meetup

Next: Thurs 5 May 2016, 6-8pm, National Library of Scotland, George IV Bridge, Edinburgh, EH1 1EW
Previous: 30 Sept 2015, Platform 5 on Haymarket, 8 Clifton Terrace, Edinburgh, EH12 5DR

Hopefully, see you there. Stinglehammer (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Catmando999. Stevie fae Scotland, thanks for creating 2000 Wellington Sevens!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add some inline citations.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 01:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016–17 Scottish League Cup Group D, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montrose. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016–17 Scottish Challenge Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glebe Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that you have updated the Dunfermline Athletic kits for this season.

Could you perhaps update the kits for Queen of the South on the club's main page and this season's page, please?

I keep the club's main page and the season pages up-to-date but I'm unsure how to change the kits.

Link included below. Many thanks. Rusty1111 : Talk 15:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Scottish_Football_League/season/2016-2017/championship.html

@Rusty1111: Sorry buddy, I didn't do it. The only edit I've made to Dunfermline was to add the updater template to make editing easier in the future. If the kit have changed then someone might have changed the template they use for keeping them up to date. I had the same problem with Kilmarnock and all I did was copy similar kits but change the colours and even then it's still fairly inaccurate. I had asked on the football project talk page but I haven't had a response, which was nice. Sorry about that. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, anyway. I'll try and figure it out by changing the colours myself. Rusty1111 : Talk 15:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016–17 Kilmarnock F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lee Clark. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014–15 in Scottish football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fiona Brown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Scottish Women's Football League First Division, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Denny and Leven. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Stevie fae Scotland. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

what gives, I updated the scoring table and results page to reflect the scores as it stands for the Clyde-Stirling game. Why revert? It's not like Gormley's going to have his goals disallowed?

Also, sorry this is probably not how you're supposed to communicate with mods. Delete as you see fit, but mark you, I'm shaking my fist in your general direction, Bino-lover — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.62.169 (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a general rule that Wikipedia isn't a live scores website. Once the game is finished and the sources have been updated, by all means go and update the article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

you're the worst, and you probably hang toilet paper the wrong way. Also, I'm going to be away from the computer for some of the latter half of the match, so I won't be able to make the rest of the updates from there. Also...I have no idea how to save progress on my changes, so I'd be re-doing all that business from scratch. Out of curiosity, since you're probably the guy who's been updating the top-scorer's table, have you got that info saved somewhere? I'm keeping an excel spreadsheet (because it was a bitch to figure out who all scored in the early matches with the Junior sides). Are you good, from here on, for those? If so, I'll delete my spreadsheet, since you've got it under control. User:Some Idiot who can't be bothered to create a profile 20:38, 31 January 2017

p.s. Davey Gorms has a hat-trick. A couple goals against Ayr, and we might have a new goal-leader to oust those upstarts at Bonnyrigg.

Cheers. If you leave the tab open on the edit page with your changes then you can leave and comeback and they will still be there. Some web browsers will save the changes if you've clicked the show preview button in their cash so you can access it by going back a page as well.

As for the top scorers, I don't know who has updated that or what the source for it is. I looked up some of the first and preliminary round matches for scorers but there are currently no scorers for the Edusport-Colville matches or for most of the second round matches. If you have the sources then it would be really helpful if you could add them in. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I finally tracked down most of the scorers off the various club pages, or https://www.theguardian.com/football/results. The problem with the guardian's scores is that there's no easy way, other than to just scroll forever, until you arrive at the right game. Edusport colville - and the other prelim matches - dont seem to matter anymore, since those clubs have all been eliminated (no more goals are coming out of Hawick, Buckie Thistle, or Bonnyrigg). I expect a couple blowouts when league 1 sides meet premiership sides, and the table will reflect reality, once more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.62.169 (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016–17 Kilmarnock F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Taylor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2017 Scottish Challenge Cup Final, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nick Walsh. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stevie, just want to say great work on the positions by round on the league pages this season. If I could ask a favour, when you get a free moment could you possibly update the Championship, League One and Two charts? You are quicker at it than me, takes me ages. CoatbridgeChancellor CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@CoatbridgeChancellor: Thanks, glad that it's appreciated. I'll see if I can get a chance this weekend and do all four in a one-er. League One/Two will be a bit tricky because of all the postponements but I'll figure it out. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2017 worldwide online editathon. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Sports"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The article 2016–17 Ayr United F.C. season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

4 sources none of which shows meets GNG. Incomplete and unlikely to be so.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Blethering Scot 20:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for creating the group stage templates! I'd planned to do them at some point but I'm delighted I now don't have to cause they're so laborious! Awesome work :D Exxy (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Exxy: You're very welcome =D, it's just going to be so much easier than update all 8 tables twice. Could use them in season articles as well to summarise the group stage as I've put the show team feature in. Should get them finished tomorrow night if I run out of time today.

Exactly, it keeps the tables consistent throughout. I know how much of a pain it is to do though. I did it for 2017 Deildabikar which was even worse because I couldn't type out the Icelandic characters in the team names, I had to copy/paste everything >__< Great work though, I'll start adding them to season pages! :) Exxy (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating 2017–18 Scottish Junior Cup, Stevie fae Scotland!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add categories.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Stevie fae Scotland. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I changed it from "Qualified" to "Qualification" to be consistent with other tables, e.g. Template:2017–18 Scottish Premiership table - after I realised none of the other Scottish leagues tables were using past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boothy m (talk • contribs) 11:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Boothy m: Fair enough, I just assumed they would all be past tense because it has already happened. Seems strange that they aren't. If you haven't already then I'll change them back.

Not sure if the EoS tables should be using blue, going by this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/League_season#Table_formatting - maybe back to yellow with 6th changed to orange? Boothy m (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Boothy m: I knew there was somewhere it told you about that, just couldn't find it. I had only changed the colour to add the possible premier qualification. Perhaps green2 so it's the lighter green when it's the earlier round of the competition? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Just that yellow specifically says "Promotion play-offs", and green would be inconsistent with other tables/previous years. Changed conference A to yellow1/2/3 - seems to work fine? Boothy m (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Boothy m: I did not know there was a yellow3. That is perfect. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting, well here's the deal! I replace the word KOS with KVX, because when Kosovo, which is my country I live in, was accepted in FIFA the applied the codename KVX and not KOS, I was surprised at first too, but then I understood why, but that's a different story, so I go always with the triggnames or what are those things called how FIFA applied them or signs every country with it! (User:Dardn2015 (talk) 19:439, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018–19 Scottish Challenge Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Shepherd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1876–77 Scottish Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Stevie fae Scotland. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2018–19 UEFA Europa League#Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Hhkohh (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1877–78 Scottish Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campsie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1880–81 Scottish Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clarkston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stevie. There's an ongoing discussion relevant to {{Scottish football updater}} that you might be interested in participating in. Cheers, Number 5 7 01:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

An article you recently created, 2019–20 West Region Premiership, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello @CASSIOPEIA:, thanks for posting to let me know. I don't think there was any question whether the subject meets WP:GNG however I appreciate your point about the lack of sources (I was a bit tired when I created it last night, I just copied it from the previous season and I haven't taken enough care to make sure the sources were kept/updated). I would have appreciated it if you had tagged the article as unreferenced rather than moving it to avoid the hassle in moving it back now that it is referenced properly. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stevie fae Scotland, Greetings. I chose to move to draft page if a page either in AfC or new page is unsourced or under secondary sources which required by Wikipedia for a page to be in mainspace. Creator could work on the draft and resubmit for review as most of the unsourced/unsourced pages are created by new editors who do not familiar with Wikipedia requirement. Your page has been reviewed and in Wikipedia main space now. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

This is the first time I have used the 'talk' system so apologies if this doesn't come out right.

I have to say that I am in full agreement with user Crowsus. The MOS style is one style of presentation of football data but is not the only one. As indicated in 18 of the 2018-19 Scottish clubs presented only one used the MOS style. In addition the other information is I think apparent as for example scorer times, opponents scorers, referees, man of the match etc details are all available. Agreed that in 1874-75 there is little of that information to hand but I have been working on the Dumbarton FC pages for some years (indeed I have created the vast majority of them) and continue to work to improve their content.

I appreciate that the hidden data is a nuisance but with lots of information on one page it is an unfortunate necessity.

I trust you will accept that the change is for the betterment of the data presented and should not be controlled by a 'styling' issue.

Aitkegs (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aitkegs: Thanks for getting back to me. The Manual of Style is supposed to be a guide as to how the articles should be structured which is why I had followed it. As Crowsus said though, it might be worth starting a discussion on WP:FOOTY then to see what the consensus is as you and I disagree about the best way to present the information. I've had another look at the archives and I can't find any consensus to use the footballbox (that doesn't mean that a new discussion won't create this consensus). I'm going to have a look at some of the other wiki policies and guidelines beforehand to see if there is any other area that can point to what it should be and I'll use anything I find out to start the discussion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: No particular issue with you seeking some sort of clarification but I would just say the MOS is a 'guide' on how to present such data - it is not mandatory. I really don't see why a style of presentation which provides more data should be a problem other than personal preference. As Crowsus as indicated the MOS now seems to be outdated and obsolete with the footballbox style appearing to have become the accepted alternative. Aitkegs (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aitkegs: That's literally the point of having a manual of style - so that it's followed. It keeps articles uniform so that users can find the information they are looking for in the same place presented in the same way therefore avoiding confusion. That doesn't mean it can't be changed, I don't have the links to hand but there have been previous discussions which have agreed it's outdated but for whatever reason haven't lead to the manual of style being updated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: This is becoming childish - you have changed the page again without any reason despite your indicating that your next step would be to raise with other users. Just because MOS is a style - it does not have to be followed religiously - and it's outdated - so there is no point in keeping to one style were there are abundant reasons to change to another. I have reintroduced the better styling and I would appreciate your leaving the page which I have created alone until you have a Wikepedia 'mandated' reason for changing it - not just a personal preference. Aitkegs (talk)

@Aitkegs: I haven't been on Wikipedia for over a week, I haven't edited those pages in over a fortnight so I don't know what you're on about. Sometimes things happen in real life that are more important than the internet. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 Scottish League Cup group stage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lewis Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:2018 Scottish Women's Premier League table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 Scottish Challenge Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jonathan Page (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1889–90 Scottish Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armadale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 Scottish Cup, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Livingston and Paisley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Zealand national football team results (1970–99), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keith Nelson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Stevie fae Scotland,

Thank you for creating Tahiti national football team 1952–79 results.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

While it isn't an individual season, the advice at WP:NSEASONS still applies. wikipedia is not a statistical directory. Articles like this should "mainly consist of well sourced prose" or else be redirects to the team article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Insertcleverphrasehere}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Hello, thank you for the feedback. The article isn't a season article, it's a list article like Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results so I've followed the principles there and at MOS:LIST. As a result, I'm not sure if the article has to specifically meet WP:NSEASONS although, for the same reasons as all the articles at Category:National association football team results, I'm fairly certain it does. The Tahitian Football Federation is a full member of FIFA and that's the main factor used by WP:FOOTBALL to determine if a national team's results are notable or not. The only difference between the article I created and the featured list - pointed to above - that I've modelled it (and others) against is the amount of prose and I appreciate you pointing this out. However, I disagree for the reasons described above that the article is not notable. As a result, I will remove the redirect and reinstate the article before adding appropriate sourced prose in the lead section to improve the article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Stevie fae Scotland, I have absolutely no problem with reinstating the article if sufficient prose can be created. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

How man Stevie,
Waw Ah can rid the guid Scots leid, Ah cannae write in it canny. Ah apologise fre writing this maistly in Geordie.
It waad appear te me tha the scerp of this article is far tee broad. We aw kent that the 2020 Summer Olympics in Terkyer waad happen in 2020. Torns oot it willnae. Aa'd suggest tha ye change the name o the article before it gets deleted under the Crystal baal criterion.
Gaan canny, Stevie --Shirt58 (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shirt58: Hey, thanks for bringing this up, loving the Geordie as well. I think it should be okay, I've just copied the Scotland equivalent and there are similar pages for Croatia and the Netherlands as well. We can always rename the page to change the year(s) if we need to. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So, can you explain when editors are allowed to disregard UEFA regulations and use sponsor names? As I understood, in the cases where sponsor names are at the same time common names. Correct me if I'm wrong. Govnery (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries @Govnery: In most cases, the common name will do so for stadia where the naming rights haven't been sold, like Celtic Park. Where the naming rights have been sold, the same rules apply so use City of Manchester Stadium instead of the Etihad Stadium. Where the naming rights have been sold and the stadium has never been known by anything other than a sponsor's name, use the sponsor's name, for example, the Allianz Arena. Hope that clears things up but if you've any other question just ask. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The reason to replace the manual code with the deprecated template is because another editor is actively migrating these tables to the newer module system which address various issues in these tables (including incorrect usages of {{tooltip}}). Reverting my changes is very counter-productive. If the alignment was an issue, that could easily have been fixed. --Gonnym (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: You got details on the fix? I know of several similar pages on my watch list and I'd be happy to implement it rather than just replace it with a deprecated template. Cheers Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:Sports table is what such tables are being switched to. You can see an example of a similar table at 1939 Roller Hockey World Cup#Standings. If you need assistance, you can always post on the module talk page, as User:Frietjes is usually very helpful there. --Gonnym (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It's common practice to update club season infobox with current information throughout the season not just at the end of the season. Please stop your disruptive edits. Look at current club season articles for Celtic, Rangers, Chelsea, Manchester City, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Juventus, Leicester City, Zenit St Petersburg, etc., etc., etc. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: It's better to assume good faith from fellow editors. The information you had put in was incorrect, it is not disruptive to remove incorrect information. However, thank you for correcting it. I had looked into the whole club season article situation last year and there was a reason that the page was started in that way, and I assume that is the same reason the parameter is called league/cup result to begin with, I just don't have that to hand though. There are a few things that are common practice in club season articles which contravene wiki policy/guidelines and the associated manual of style but the info is now correct so I'm happy not to do anything more. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi mate sorry to bother you but thought you were the best guy to ask. Was adding the scorers to the season statistics section and inadvertently have made the Sections below it (Awards, refs etc) hidden on the mobile view. Can't for the life of me see what I've done wrong but it's sending my ocd wild! Suspect it's a simple coding error when adding the ref. Any help greatly appreciated. Hope you are well. CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, sorted it. What an idiot I am. Delete this if it's cluttering up your page. Thanks for your good work editing the Scottish pages. CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@CoatbridgeChancellor: No worries, it can drive me mad as well! Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020–21 Scottish League Cup group stage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Miller.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Argentina national football team results (2000–19), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Sakiv (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sakiv: I did leave a valid reason. The article title is incorrect per MOS:DATERANGE and I referenced that in the edit summary. Had I known the page had already been created, I would have just moved it to the correct title. Please see discussion here for further details. The article format is also incorrect per WP:ACCESS and MOS:LIST. The consensus for list articles is to use a table to display the information. This consensus has been agreed by WP:FOOTY as well and, as an example, Scotland national football team results (1872–1914) is a featured article and MOS:Club season uses this format. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have only seen this format in articles that you are editing, please do not replace an existing and frequently used format for invalid reasons. There is a lot of examples England, Spain, Italy. Regarding the date range, the article that should remain is the oldest, not the newest. I will submit a naming request. The article is not a list by the way.--Sakiv (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support any move request. The article is a list of results, it can't not be a list. I shall raise the format issue once again at WP:FOOTY, although I don't think the consensus will change from recent discussion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I want to thank you for the creation of all "Argentina national football team results" articles. As an Argentinean but above all, as an old football fan, I'm glad to see those articles about my national squad. I guess that it must have taken a long time to summarize all the matches played since 1902, but the effort was worth the trouble, be sure about that !

Best regards, Fma12 (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fma12: Not a problem! It did take a bit of time but I'm really happy with how it's turned out. Thanks for the feedback, it's always good to hear from other editors. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I just wanted to ask a question regarding the 2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League page. I was just wondering, why does Club Brugge go to the Conference League if they finish 1st in the Belgian League. According to google and the official UEFA page the 3rd placed team in the league goes to the third qualifying round and the 4th placed team goes to the second qualifying round (for the play-off 1 bit of the Belgian league). Another two things. One, if Club Brugge becomes first shouldn't they go to the Champions League? If not then what ranking does go to the Champions League. It's quite odd that 1st place of the 7th ranked European league goes to the Europa Conference League. And two, the league didn't even end yet. I know it's a guaranteed win for Club Brugge but that's only part one of the league. They also have play-off 1 right? Can you explain this to me because this doesn't make sense.

Thanks, Mohammad :) A.K.A. 173.68.157.63 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@173.68.157.63: Hi Mohammad, thanks for asking. It's because there is a defined place for the winners of the regular season in Belgium like there is a defined place for the cup winners from each association. Every season, once the team is known for each place we add them in. In Club Brugge's case - and this often applies to the winners of the EFL Cup or other cup competitions - they are italicised and a note is added explaining that they have qualified through that defined place but that they may still qualify for another competition. Once it's mathematically certain that they have qualified for another competition and the defined place will be passed onto the next best team, we'll update the article. If the opposite happens, we just remove the note and un-italicise it. Hope that helps. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Hey I just wanted to let you know that I finally logged into my old account as I figured out the password. This is still Mohammad speaking but it isn't my IP address anymore.

~~Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Argentina national football team results (2020–present), you may be blocked from editing.~~ Sakiv (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sakiv: I was really disappointed to see this come back as I thought the dispute resolution you'd brought up at Talk:Argentina national football team results (2020–present) was constructive. I don't want to see this escalate any further, you're a good contributor to Wikipedia just on this occasion consensus and Wiki policy hasn't supported your opinion but you are becoming WP:UNCIVIL. I don't believe my edits construed vandalism so I would like to give you the opportunity to strike the above warning and we can draw a line under this. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This situation that you started makes Wikipedia a toxic place rather than a place for cooperation and understanding. I did not go to Scotland's page or any other page and radically alter its appearance under the pretext that there is a non-mandatory style recommending the use of tables. What I cannot understand is that you only see what you want since you started to change Argentina article and did not put any effort in articles that use the exact same template as Spain and Italy or recently created North Macedonia. What is happening now is called hypocrisy and double standards. Where is the logic when more than 3,500 bytes of valuable information are deleted? You yourself supported the use of the template in a previous discussion in the project and now you are leading opponents to it. The guideline (not policy) simply cannot be relied upon as it is not applied in 95% of football articles and has not been subject to any concrete update for 14 years!. Now, how many Premier League clubs season articles use tables for football matches?? 1/20 that is 5%. There are multiple options in front of me in the event that the topic is not dealt with wisely, which is either to change all articles or your argument will not have any effect.--Sakiv (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

In order to keep the discussion connected I would like to continue our discussion in the Footballbox collapsible talk page so that other editors can take part.--Sakiv (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. I will eventually get to the Spain and Italy articles you've pointed out but right now I'm working on Bolivia and going through the all these articles - of which there will be more than 500 - takes time. I honestly don't see the point in continuing this any further because it has been established countless times that per Wikipedia policy, the proper format to use is a table. And yes, I know four years ago I advocated for the football box templates but that was before I knew what the applicable policies were so I have since changed the way I edit to reflect that. I would suggest you consider doing the same. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is important to have good faith and mutual trust to facilitate a solution that satisfies all parties. The main reason for my objection to the tables is because they do not give an opportunity to see who scored in the penalty shoot-out in case there is a need, and also they do not give the possibility to know the opponent's scorers. Showing the opponent's scorers may be irrelevant to some, but that is at the heart of the matter, as, for example, a team lost 1-6, it is natural that the reader will be interested in knowing the scorers of the team that scored 6 instead of just the goal of the defeated team. The same applies to the referee, as the media and the public are usually interested in knowing who is the referee who will be responsible for that match. Football box collapisble handles most of this. I am not saying the template is perfect and faultless, but it is best that we have. By the way, when that manual of style was adopted (2007), the template was not even created (2009), so continuing to use the tables no longer concerns us because there is an alternative to it.--Sakiv (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid continuing to use tables does concern us because the football box template does not meet the applicable policies for these types of article (as has been shown countless times). I am more than happy if you want to add a referee column to the tables, I think that would be a welcome addition and is already included in the club season manual of style. I don't think that MOS:ACCESSIBILITY argument is what you think it is because football box (which acts as a barrier to information when collapsed) should conform to that policy if it was created after it and shouldn't be an alternative to making Wikipedia accessible to all. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Template talk:Football box collapsible. Sakiv (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sakiv: I was really disappointed to see this. At no point did I vandalise Wikipedia in the way you have suggested. Nor did I say that you were uncivil prior to your most recent comment in that discussion, I suggested that the comment I was about to type could be uncivil. However, what you have done since my most recent comment I would consider to be uncivil. I would like to give you the opportunity to strike the above warning as it is completely inappropriate and no way to resolve a dispute between two editors. I would also ask that you reconsider the last comment I made and your proceeding comment. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Hey! I just wanted to let you know that there was a source saying that the Welsh Cup was curtailed from a different editor and I took his word for it. I guess it wasn't so that was my bad. But I'm here to talk about Molde FK. We shouldn't add them to the list yet because they are still in the Europa League and can possibly qualify for the Champions League. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: Thanks for getting in touch again. I've restored the pages to the way we have traditionally done things, you're new so I understand that you won't have been involved in editing these kind of articles in the past. The reason we include teams when they have qualified is because it is a fact they have qualified and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't know if that will change so we add a note to say it might change. For each team that has qualified in a defined slot we include them in that defined slot whether or not they can qualify through a different route.

PS- Just so you know, you don't need to ping someone when posting on their talk page because they get a notification anyway.

PPS- The Welsh Cup link you had was for the Welsh League Cup which is a different competition and has been cancelled. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which is why we shouldn't be putting teams that haven't 100% qualified. I'm not making a prediction that they will win, but it's possible that they can so we shouldn't be making assumptions. Until they have 100% qualified somewhere, we should keep them blank. Let me give you an example. If Manchester City wins the Carabao Cup and the EPL isn't over yet, do we put Manchester City in the Europa Conference League? No, I don't think we should because they have a chance to qualify elsewhere and yet we are putting them somewhere saying that they have qualified. If you say that we can just change them if they do qualify elsewhere, then what was the point of adding them? We should just be patient and wait to see what happens.

PS- Club Brugge's rank in the first part of the league isn't relevant unless they don't finish in the top two in the second part. Nor is Molde FK's rank until they get eliminated from the Europa League. I really don't get this way of editing.

PPS- Another example is let's say Bayern wins the first leg of a competition. And us Wikipedians say Bayern qualifies for yhe next round. Somebody complains saying, just because Bayern won the first leg, doesn't mean they qualify for the next round. Now using your logic you say back, that is true but if it does change we will change it but for now Bayern is going to put as qualified to the next round. Which I don't understand. Also, I read your talk page (don;t ask why) and I saw above you mentioned to a person that Wikipedia isn't a live score thing, you edit once it is done which is what I'm doing so basically you are being hypocritical to your own words. Sorry if I was rude but this should really change.

PPPS- When you mentioned Wikipedia is not a crystal ball I think you misunderstood what I meant. I don't mean that we should add the team to a different competition, I meant we should add them NOWHERE until their spot is confirmed (which is what this if for). User:Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.

PPPPS- The Welsh Cup Note wasn't mine nor was the link. I just edited the note to make more sense. I wasn't the one that said it was cancelled.

Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: Sorry, I thought it was you who added the Welsh Cup stuff, my bad. The last time Man City won the EFL Cup, they were added into the Europa League page even though they eventually qualified for the Champions League. That's the way we do it because that is the default access list and it a fact that they have qualified for that competition. As a few examples this season's Champions League from July which includes Lazio even though they they might not qualify for the Champions League and last season's Europa League which has Man City as League Cup winners. They have qualified in those defined spots so we include them and if things change in the future, we'll update it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: I get that but, why? Why can't we just wait and see what happens instead of adding someone that might not even qualify there? Also you got rid of my Faroe Islands note for some reason. That might've been a mistake. Also, can you stop reverting my notes? Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: Can I apologise again, this time for the notes? I was going to send a link to the part of the article that explains why the cup winners from every country isn't listed but it's not already on the page. I thought it was which is why I had reverted those. I don't know if a note is definitely the right way to display that information but it's definitely better to include it (so if you add them back in, I won't change them).

As to why, it shows progression and it's easier for readers to follow. So if a reader sees an empty box, they'll often assume no one has qualified in that spot yet but if they see a box with Molde or whoever else in italics then they know someone has qualified but with a caveat. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: That makes sense. Sorry, it took me a while to understand!

Oh, and another question, since the notes are in alphabetical order, is the name of the country in alphabetical order or is it the abbreviation?

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: That's a good question actually, I'm not sure. I would do it by name of country so Spain would still be after Scotland even though it's ESP. If I'm wrong, someone will sort the order.Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Okay thanks. SO I'll put Faroe Islands before Finland even though the abbreviations are FRO and FIN. Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Sakiv (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: This may concern you too.

Hi, I see there is an ongoing discussion about the use of tables over {{football box collapsible}} in the national football team results pages. Now when I made the nomination for the Gibraltar national football team results page to become a featured list it originally looked liked this with the template being used and loads of excess details were included. However through the featured list discussion I got to learn more about MOS:ACCESS (and other guidelines) and converted the individual matches into the table format, keeping only the vital information needed.

I would like you guys to know that I am now all in favour of tables and believe they are more appropriate to use. Now the Gibraltar featured list nomination is pending an outcome, however, as you may know, there are five result lists that have achieved FL status that use a table. So hopefully this will work in our favour. The only thing is, how do we make it the consensus to use table going forward? I have tried to see all your discussions on talk pages to get an idea of how frustrating it is going to be. I'm sure someone will just start reverting anyone who tries to convert the templates into tables.

Also I have had my issue with User:Sakiv in the past, and unfortunately they seem to believe they have ownership of most result pages. They even reverted an edit where I added a match result, gave me a warning on my talk page about disruptive editing, and then proceeded to add the result that I originally did.

Sorry for the essay but I had to let you guys know you have my full support — 6ii9 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks 6ii9, I appreciate it. There will be an RfC in the next few days (I don't know exactly when or where) so feel free to put views forward. The details should be posted at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Argentina national football team results (2020–present) once it has started.

I'm hopeful that because of people like you who understand the policies that affect these articles, we should come to the same conclusion as we have before. It's like hitting a brick wall with Sakiv unfortunately, their only argument now seems to be that lists aren't lists which is illogical at best. We'll see how it goes though and let the community decide. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@6ii9: Likewise, I appreciate the support. Though I've only been involved in this a little, it has been very frustrating at times so I'm pleased to see that we appear to be moving towards an end to this dispute. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey! It is impossible for the winner of this league to be in the first pot, because this would require that both Champions and Europa League title holders win their domestic leagues. Since Roma, Villareal and Arsenal can't win their leagues, this would require Manchester United to win the 2020-21 Premier League and the 2020-21 Europa League. But this would mean that the winner of the Champions League (Manchester City or Chelsea) can't win their league. So, it is only possible for Zenit (winner of the Russian Premier League) to be put in the first pot and not for the champion of the Belgian division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costasgeorg (talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi ! According Article 3.06 https://documents.uefa.com/r/Regulations-of-the-UEFA-Champions-League-2020/21/Article-3-Entries-for-the-competition-Online , if Chelsea win UEFA CL 2020/21 finishing out of top 4 in Premiership, team will enter in UEFA CL 2021/22 as titleholder as 5th English participant. In this case, in UEFA EL 2021/22 will enter 6th & 7th, ore 5th & 7th, and in UEFA Conference League will enter 8th.Tormon245t (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tormon245t: Hi, thanks for pointing that out but you've missed Article 3.03 which states: the number of places to which its association is entitled in the UEFA Europa League is decreased by one so if Chelsea win the Champions League and finish fifth, England will only have one team in the Europa League and one team in the Europa Conference League. The only way eighth could qualify is if one of the top seven were denied a UEFA licence by the FA and I doubt that would happen. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Tnx ! Nevertheless, in last season there was an option to participation with 9 (5+4) teams from one association according to LAST article 3.07 Tormon245t (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I know it can be very confusing when they tweak the rules ever so slightly like that. Would be good if they were consistent! Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I had been notified that you have reverted my edit which hides those club coefficients in the 2021–22 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round article and you gave the reason that "consistent with 2021–22 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round and 2021–22 UEFA Europa Conference League qualifying phase and play-off round". However the regulations to UEL is not consistent by words of club coefficients. As the number would lead major misunderstanding, at least for me already, for the club coefficients as the major factor in the seedings, which UCL and UECL do while UEL doesn't, should we have some deep discussion on this issue? KyleRGiggs (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@KyleRGiggs: Hi, sorry for the slight misunderstanding. I didn't mean consistency of regulations, I meant consistency of Wiki articles. In the UCL and UECL articles, we display the qualified teams with their coefficients next to them so it would keep things consistent to do the same in UEL article. I understand where you're coming from when you say people could misunderstand it but it is explained in the article prose. If you don't think that explanation is clear enough though, I would encourage you to improve it. Tbf, they will be removed once the draw has been made as we have done in previous years and this is already the case for the 2021–22 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round#Preliminary round. As an aside, I personally don't see any reason to hide them, if they are to be taken from the reader's view, they might as well be completely removed. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, there is a discussion on my talk page about cards in national team results. You are encouraged to join it. Mwiqdoh (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: Thanks for letting me know. Right now, I'll refrain from commenting as Sakiv and I have been involved in a similar dispute before but per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and previous consensuses at WP:FOOTY, I would be against including cards. It is also worth noting that following an RfC at Talk:Argentina national football team results (2020–present), the consensus is to display national team results in a table and not a series of football box templates. I feel your pain though, a dispute with Sakiv is not an easy process to go through. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: So does that mean all national team results articles should be converted to tables? If so I can do that right away for you. Also he is changing the national teams to cards and he won't answer me so what do I do? He reverts me removing cards but when I try to bring up the issue he ignores me. (I saw on User Talk:SteveMc25 he mentioned that the reason for adding cards was to avoid the conversion from template to table so... Mwiqdoh (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: I would be so grateful if you could help me convert them to tables. I've got through all the OFC nations as well as Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil to 1989. Some, like Scotland, Wales and Gibraltar are already in the correct format but there are still a lot to go through.

As for the Sakiv issue, bring it up at WP:FOOTY as it will make administrators aware of their disruptive behaviour, it's the kind of behaviour which makes me think of WP:OWN. That will also allow other users to give their view on the issue of cards being included in these articles. If this doesn't solve the issue, there are a number of other options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Yes, I will help you convert them. Can you do the WP:FOOTY thing, I have no clue how it works. Also, will Sakiv ban me? Mwiqdoh (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: All you have to do is click "New section" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, explain there's a dispute about cards being added to national team results articles and ask for other users opinions on the issue. You can only be banned from editing by an administrator and they would need a valid reason to do so. If you're not sure, have a look at WP:CONDUCT. The policies there explain how an editor can contribute in a constructive manner and the type of things that would result in a ban. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It was done long before I insisted on adding cards. At England national football team results (2020–present) it wasn't me who began adding yellow cards.--Sakiv (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sakiv: But you told User:SteveMc25 to add it to avoid it from being converted to tables. You are telling people to add it. Mwiqdoh (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I only wanted some consistency.--Sakiv (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I have self-reverted. We can continue the discussion at the article's talkpage.--Sakiv (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Please add the opposition goal scorers and minutes, etc. to tables. Check out the Argentina national football team results (2020–present) to see how the design is. I'll fix the tables you already made, but for future tables. Mwiqdoh (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know. These things take time though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I understand. I wasn't very active so I converted Afghanistan national football team results (2020–present). Mwiqdoh (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Sakiv is trying to ban me. And General Ization didn't even read what the dispute was about and just based it on their personal experience with me. Can you please help. I'm not asking for you to be biased for me, just say what you think is morally right. Mwiqdoh (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: Sorry, I've been ill the past few days. I had a look at the discussion there and all I can say is try and learn from this experience. You've interacted with an editor who isn't the easiest to work with so if something similar happens again, think about it before you respond/react. Look at things like WP:BRD and, as I've said before, WP:CONDUCT. If you stick by them, you'll keep yourself right and it might be easier to resolve in future. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Feel better! Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Stev, how are you? I saw that you reversed the edits I made in the articles of the Brazil national team matches. It turns out that the games are not exactly "unofficial", but rather have limited recognition by some of the football associations involved.

If you look closely, they seem to be accounted for in the two main sources used to assemble the article (World Football Elo and RSSSF Brasil)

I believe you do an excellent job and I don't intend to harm you, but don't you think it would be appropriate to report that these matches took place and the reasons for the recognition to be limited?

Regards!

Svartner (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Svartner: Hi, thanks for getting in touch. I fully agree that they should we should include them and outline why they aren't official matches but they should be included at Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches). That way, readers understand at a glance that these aren't official matches of the national team and there's no confusion with the official results pages. Hope that helps, Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Stevie, I'm confused on why American Samoa's first FIFA game seems to be played on 02 Sep 98 vs. Tonga (L0-3). I thought it was on 15 Dec 87 against PNG (L0-20) as they were FIFA affiliated from 1966) starting from American Samoa's first ever games. Plus there are three extra Polynesia Cup games in 1994 against Western Samoa, Tahiti and Tonga who were all FIFA-affiliated before 1994. FastCube (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've realised that the game vs Tonga is taken as the first FIFA international match, because American Samoa were affiliated in 1998. I don't believe it matters if the team themselves is FIFA-affiliated at the time or not. Unless I'm wrong, I think a FIFA game just counts if an international game is played by the team against one that is FIFA-affiliated at the time.

For example, Australia played Canada in 1924. Australia were FIFA affiliated in 1963 whereas Canada were affiliated in 1913 which is before this game was played. So for Australia the game would count as a FIFA match, but for Canada it wouldn't be. FastCube (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@FastCube: Thanks for getting in touch. It's an awkward one in some cases as the first matches between Scotland and England in the 1870s are recognised as the first international matches but neither could be a member of an organisation that didn't exist. I think the American Samoa situation is more like the situation with Gibraltar, they both played football matches while FIFA existed but weren't members for various reasons. What we should do though, is make sure we're following what reliable sources say and when I updated the American Samoa national football team article (it's a while ago now) the sources pointed to the Tonga game as their first FIFA recognised match but obviously not their first match. I don't know how that would affect that particular Canada-Australia match as I haven't looked at any sources for it but I'd follow what they say. As another example, technically none of Tuvalu's matches are FIFA recognised as they have never been a member but they did take part in qualifying for the 2010 World Cup. All we can do is go by what reliable sources say and that might mean some inconsistencies from time to time. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, to be fair there is no official record from American Samoa of "A"/FIFA-recognised international matches anywhere online. I think the best idea would be to just read sources and take out games that have opponents that weren't FIFA-affiliated. This would be the easiest and most clear way to classify official games for American Samoa. Plus, about Tuvalu playing in the 2010 WCQ, they weren't allowed to participate in the World Cup Finals, so it doesn't matter for them. FastCube (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)FastCube

Hello Stevie. Since the day, we both thought there could be no chance to classify official games for a national team. This PDF is an official document on FIFA stating regulations on international matches for a national team. Before a team is FIFA-affiliated, both teams don't or one have to be FIFA-affiliated, it just matters on if they are both senior/first teams (also known as an "A" team). Many national associations have used this to create their list of official games of the team before they are FIFA-affiliated.

For example in 1872: England vs Scotland FIFA wasn't a thing but they were both A teams, therefore the game counts. After the team is FIFA-affiliated, that's where the FIFA-recognized match rule comes in place. This is because once they are FIFA-affiliated, FIFA is obviously in charge of the matches of the national team. An official record does not all need to include FIFA-recognized matches to be included. So to confirm, before 1998 (American Samoa's FIFA affiliation), all games played by them will count as 'A' internationals as all games played by are all against first national teams. After that, FIFA-recognized games only included starting in 1998. Unless I'm wrong or if I read the info wrong, RSSSF clearly shows matches that are full international matches. Hope this clears everything. FastCube (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@FastCube: That's terrific actually, it'll make things a lot easier for us. It means then that we can transclude the table from here because they should now be the same. It'll keep it consistent and we'll also only need to update one table instead of updating both pages. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1873–74 Scottish Cup you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Stevie, I'm back again with more American Samoa confusion, this time with the venues. I'm concerned on why every game is neutral apart from the one friendly against Fiji (L0-6). In tournaments, they sometimes play a team that's in their home country like Samoa for example (they play in Apia), so that should be an away game.

Home games are always meant to be games played in their own country
Away games are always meant to be games played in their opponent's own country
and Neutral games are always meant to be games where both teams are not playing in their own country

If you have reasoning for this, please tell me straightaway. Thanks; Alex. FastCube (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I know what you mean. They've played a game in, for example, Samoa against Samoa but it isn't technically an away game. The reason for it is that all but one of their matches have been played at tournaments (eg- Pacific Games) or mini-tournaments (eg- World Cup qualification). As a result, all the games are technically at a neutral venue. Sometimes American Samoa are classed as the home team for administrative purposes, sometime they are the away team. As a couple of examples, in qualifying for the 2002 World Cup, Australia and New Zealand were the hosts for the first stage but they were classed as the away team for two of their four matches. At the 2007 South Pacific Games played in Samoa, American Samoa were the "home" team for their game against Samoa. An even more recent example, England were the "away" team for the Euros final even though it was played at Wembley. Tournament football is technically played at neutral venues even though the host nation are playing in their own country. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I also see what you know. So it's not counted as away because American Samoa can be played as the home side in a tournament like American Samoa v Samoa (L0-8) in 2001 WCQ, but in statistical views it doesn't really make sense. It also doesn't beat the point that American Samoa play (for example Cook Islands) when it's in Samoa, it counts as away when the opponent is not affiliated with the venue. From what I (or maybe others) see; I don't believe it matters what the match status/competition is, as long as the location is known, so it can count as home/away/neutral. Say when Russia hosted the World Cup, all their games would be home matches and whoever plays them (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Uruguay, Spain, Croatia) it would all be away games for them. If not home or away, then it's neutral. I think this makes more sense than just how the matches are administrated. But I know whatever it is, it has to be done. FastCube (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The status of the match does matter though, that's why these games are considered neutral venues. Tournament football, unless it's like the 1983 Copa América which was played on a home and away basis, are technically played at neutral venues. UEFA controlled the venues for the Euros, not the FA, SFA, RFEF etc, just like FIFA controlled the venues for the World Cup and not the Russian FA so even though the setting might be familiar for the host nation, it's still a neutral venue. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The article 1873–74 Scottish Cup you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1873–74 Scottish Cup for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Your points are valid and I think you are in the right. I misinterpreted the MOS and also see in similar cup articles with group stages the way you have edited it, is how it's formatted. I thought all of them were "Second round" or "Knockout stage" but I see I am wrong. I'm just glad to see someone is finally agreeing not to capitalize every word as I see that way too often and hate it and before I had made any edit to it, it was "Second Round"! Thanks and happy editing. Rupert1904 (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Stevie; after my edit on the American Samoa national football team results to change the matches to collapsible football boxes, I had a feeling it would be reverted. Now there has been a lot controversy that happens in the WikiProject Football discussions for which format of international matches to use. Almost half of them use the table format like New Zealand and Scotland you mentioned, whereas people also prefer football boxes. Like I was involved for Australia results at To me, football boxes can specify every detail of a full international match and can align perfectly in factor of the flags, locations and result colour and includes missing info like opponent scorers, stadiums and referees. Teams like England, Spain, Sweden, South Korea etc. all use football boxes and source descriptions of the article. FastCube (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@FastCube: Hello. I know some view this as controversial but it has been discussed a number of times and the consensus established here, here and here as well as this featured list nomination are all to use a table over the football box template. This is because the table fits with MOS:LIST and WP:ACCESS. An uncollapsed football box meets ACCESS but not LIST and WP:WHENTABLE specifically mentions lists of sports results as an appropriate use of a table. I am currently in the process of moving other lists of national team results from the football box template to tables for these reasons but it takes time to go through 200+ national teams, many of which have two and three pages to sort out. I'll get there though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Stevie fae Scotland. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/1873–74 Scottish Cup.
Message added 11:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks, just spotted it on my watchlist as well. I've responded at Template:Did you know nominations/1873–74 Scottish Cup. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

On 16 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1873–74 Scottish Cup, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that of the 16 teams to enter the inaugural Scottish Cup, only Dumbarton, Kilmarnock and Queen's Park still regularly compete in the competition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1873–74 Scottish Cup. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1873–74 Scottish Cup), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Stevie fae Scotland. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kilmarnock F.C. 5–1 Eintracht Frankfurt, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colombia national football team results (2000–2019), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlos Valdés.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A new discussion has begun regarding the AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates. Please add your thoughts there. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I thought the checklist on your userpage was cool, but just a suggestion, for OFC the table is done although, it doesn't have complete information (such as the opponent's goalscorers and the minutes), so I don't know if you'd consider it done on the checklist. Also, the football federation of Afghanistan still uses the 2013 flag, so I suggest you put {{fb|AFG|2013}}. Also, if I convert one of the countries to the table format, would it be okay if I check it off on your user page? All of these are suggestions, and you don't need to listen to them, just thought I could help! :) Mwiqdoh (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: Hey, thanks for getting in touch. I would love some help with it, 200+ national teams takes a while to go through. There's a couple of reason's I hadn't put in things like opposition scorers and it's mainly because Scotland national football team results (1872–1914) is a featured article and I just copied that style. The Montserrat and Gibraltar articles are pretty much the same (with the exception that Montserrat doesn't colour code the results and Gibraltar includes the minutes goals were scored). It's hard for some countries because you don't always have that information which is the case for a lot in Oceania. Since I started this, I've looked into wiki policy and I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE covers why we shouldn't overload these articles with too much information. The table you had on the Afghanistan page was a lot better than the one at Argentina national football team results (2020–present) though but, especially for mobile users, the bigger the table gets the harder it can be to read. Not much you can do when a team wins 11–0 and there are 11 different scorers but if we keep it more compact then it makes the information more accessible. If it's linked and referenced properly then readers can click through and get whatever extra info they want.

I'd be more than happy for you to tick them off as we go along but there was an occasion when someone else edited my userpage. They didn't do anything wrong and I wasn't fussed about it but it was reverted by a third party so I wonder if the same would happen to you. Said user is now indefinitely blocked for unrelated reasons so I don't know. Maybe, you could just post here and I could tick it off? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll let you know instead then, as I don't want to be under the risk of being blocked. As for the OFC and not much coverage, I get what you mean. When I was doing Afghanistan national football team results (1941-1959) there was barely any coverage either. It's all right though, We'll work with what we got! What I am suggesting is that you mark articles with the full table differently as to articles with only the goalscorers. This way, we can see which tables need to be expanded. --Mwiqdoh (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And I just noticed that you removed the article into a redirect, due to it not having enough matches, but 11 matches is plenty for a separate article, and it actually has more games than a lot of national team results. Mwiqdoh (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be blocked if you edited someone else's user page, I just thought it might get undone if you did and then I'd have to do it again anyway. I'm not sure though.

So you mean like two different check marks? I guess we could, I think it would be easier to just get all the tables done first though, there is a lot to do.

Regarding the Afghan page, as a general rule I wouldn't normally put together a page with less than 100 matches unless there is a compelling reason not to. So, for example, Samoa have played less than 100 matches but their article is split in two because the country was officially called Western Samoa before 1997. As a result, it would be historically inaccurate to have all of Samoa's matches on one page. For a national team, Afghanistan haven't really played that many games so it seems a bit pointless splitting the article up. That's why I also merged some of the Oceanian articles. On the flip side, some teams play as many as 300 matches in 20 years, I wouldn't put together a page with more than that because it would be too long. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(@Mwiqdoh: Sorry, I forgot you wouldn't see this if I didn't tag you) Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Afghanistan have played more than 100 games in total, so the results would be put in multiple articles. And the standard rule is 20 years per page, so I did so. -- Mwiqdoh (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And also, the Afghanistan national football team results page doesn't have all the games (as I added 3 extra games from the 1950s they didn't include), so there might be even more games that Afghanistan have played. Mwiqdoh (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: Yeah, that is a problem with some of them. It's frustrating because Elo and RSSSF don't always match up. I don't usually include matches from Elo that I can't find elsewhere (they sometimes include unofficial games) but it's a judgement call that we have to make as editors. And whatever decisions we make now, it doesn't mean that we can't alter the list at a later date if new information comes to light. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think it should be merged though as there is over 200 games played by Afghanistan within a timespan of 80 years (according to Elo that is) and that is too much information to fit into one article. That is my opinion though and I'd love to see your viewpoint of this. -- Mwiqdoh (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: Elo has 134 games for Afghanistan so I'd say that was fine for one article. The Vanuatu article has 154 matches and it's not too long. Don't get me wrong, in 10 years time, it's more than possible that the Afghanistan article will get split but I don't think we need to pre-empt it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright thanks! I am taking a wikibreak for a week though, so I will be absent and not able to edit the national team results. When I am back, I'll work on the results. Thanks for the discussion! :) Mwiqdoh (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No worries, enjoy your time offline Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey,

Just looking at your recent edits, why do you prefer Forthcoming Fixtures over the year?

Other national team pages, such as England, Brazil and the template all suggest that differentiating by year is standard?

Cheers,

Felixsv7 (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: Hey, thanks for asking. The main reason is that I think people sort of expect the place they find results and fixtures to either be one list with both results and fixtures (a bit like how Soccerway does on each club page) or as two separate lists, one with results and one with fixtures (a bit like how Flashscore does on each club page). Sometimes it is still like that when it's broken up by year but it does often break the list when it crosses two or three separate years especially with teams that have 20+ matches in a 24 month period. With teams that play infrequently like the ones I've edited today, we probably don't need any separate headings, either by year or the way I've done it, and could just leave that section as one unbroken list. It's not often that they've had more than 10 games in a 24 month period. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I get what you're saying but I'd back the way as shown on the template, not only because it allows for consistency across all national team pages, but also as readers are told that it is the Results and Fixtures section, therefore expecting the two to be mixed. If they're then separated into subcategories, we may as well have two individual sections - which I am not advocating! Anyway, not a big issue, just thought I'd ask!

The other thing that I wanted to bring up was whether it is necessary to show all links to all of a team's results (New Zealand) rather than just linking to the latest decade (Argentina) and then allowing users to navigate from there? Felixsv7 (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: Isn't splitting it up by year just the same as by fixtures/results (the only difference being where it's split)? To be fair, I'd be happy having it one continuous list not separated into subcategories (whether that's by year or anything else).

My only thoughts re- links to results pages is that if we only link to one of a series of articles then we use the See also template and not the Main article one. The main article template could imply that there is only one article with the results (this would be appropriate for teams that play infrequently and only have one article though). The see also template leaves it open so you know it's only one from a series. I'm not fussed if we link to one or the whole series though as the results links will also be in the national team's navbox. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ha, it effectively is, except the year is the way that it's split across the majority of national teams therefore let's try to remain consistent! I more meant, with subcategories, that having Result and Fixtures in the title, then Results then Fixtures as subheadings seems silly. And a division by year means that we then don't need to write out 2021 or 2022 for every following fixture. Makes it a bit cleaner! Anyway, I'd say stick to the template unless you feel the template is incorrect in which case, bring it up on the WikiProject and let's form a consensus. Either way, thanks for your edits.

I also like your idea for using See Also for any page that isn't a full list of all of a team's results. Seems sensible and we could amend the template to follow those guidelines. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: Yeah, there are a lot of bits in that template that I don't like haha. Some of it is just personal preference and I accept that's not a reason to change things. There are other bits though that I think have the potential to be better than they are. Like, a lot of articles just rely on tables for a lot of it and don't add the prose around it to add context which means they aren't as good quality as they could be (to be fair, this is probably more an issue with the implementation of the template as I'm pretty sure it's at least implied if not stated that tables should be accompanied by prose). The head-to-head record table should also be moved to Module:Sports table as those tables are exactly what the module was designed for. I'm not sure if the head-to-head table should be on every national team page especially if it's hidden though. I'd rather it was either there in full or there was a link to the records page where you could see it in full. I don't understand the fascination with kit supplier either. That's just some thoughts anyway. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ha, I completely agree about kit supplier, who is trawling Wikipedia for that information? And your point about Head-to-head makes a lot of sense. I'd also like some guidance as to when to move a bloated History section into an independent article and how to actually structure a team's FIFA rankings (as almost none look like the template's). Which tables do you feel aren't properly implemented, besides the Head-to-head ones? Felixsv7 (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

And almost none of the Competitive Records sections comply with the new structure, but I guess that'll just take time. Felixsv7 (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: So, I was WP:BOLD and just changed the head-to-head table to Module:Sports table. It could get very long though for teams that have played loads of different countries (another reason to keep it on the records and statistics page tbf).

I agree re- World rankings table (it's really the only other one that I think isn't done properly). It suggests that we should list the team's end of year ranking from every year since it was established and I think that would be too WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Instead, I think it should just be incorporated as prose into the history section. I'm not against having it as an independent sub section within the history section but a good history section will mention the rankings regularly.

I do like the competitive records section, we've come to a good compromise following that discussion about it but yeah, it will take time to get all 200+ national teams into that style.

For making an independent history article, I would check the article size. If it's too big, move it to an independent article and just summaries it in the parent article. WP:SIZERULE suggests that any article of more than 50kb (around 10,000 words) may need splitting. Any article of more than 100kb definitely needs split. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I too was WP:BOLD and changed the Competitive Records section that we'd agreed upon to show what should happen to tournaments prior to a team's entry (as I saw that you'd been reverting a user on the Cook Islands). Let me know if I've missed something / if you don't feel that my change is construcutive - Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams#Competitive record. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: That is exactly what that section needed, thank you. It's kinda weird that we didn't discuss it before. It's utterly pointless to list 10 or 15 tournaments when they didn't or couldn't compete, it's just a waste of space, so that will definitely help. (Tbf, that IP has also been changing the style of the table to make it unnecessarily wide which annoys me more than it should haha) Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

An article you recently created, 2022 South Lanarkshire Council election, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@John B123: Purely for consistency, could you also dratify 2022 Glasgow City Council election and 2022 Dumfries and Galloway Council election which also do not cite any sources? Thanks Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. All done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Stevie fae Scotland. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Heart of Midlothian F.C. 0–2 Kilmarnock F.C. (1965), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there Steve,

Thank you for adding more details and corrections on the 2022 Dundee City Council election. Much appreciated! KeyKing666 (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your significant contributions over the years... Keep it going! Volten001 ^☎ 09:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello I found a major problem in the Anguilla national football team (which might be happening to other North American football results articles). The major problem is that all the dates of the results are a day later than when they were actually played. I think this is because in Scotland, the time is a day later than in North America, meaning almost every single result, the date is inaccurate. I'm sorry if this creates more work for you, I just had to let you know. Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mwiqdoh: Hey, no worries. It is difficult to work out sometimes. I always use Elo for dates rather than Soccerway. Soccerway always lists the date as UK time whereas Elo lists them as local time. It would be easier if we had a source similar to the New Zealand ones, I don't think there's a single New Zealand match played in Oceania that happened on the same day here as it was there but the sources are all based in New Zealand which makes it easier. If there are any mistakes, we can fix them. Thanks, Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

No it's my fault I am mistaken, the problem is the national team page, the results page is correct. I will fix the dates on the national team page. I apologize. Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. These are wee things that often get missed so it's always worth double checking. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Stevie fae Scotland

Thank you for creating 2022 Argyll and Bute Council election.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with <nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>SunDawn<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. Please remember to sign your reply with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Stevie fae Scotland,

Thank you for creating 2022–23 UEFA Europa Conference League qualifying phase and play-off round (Main Path).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

If possible, add citations for the endnotes – even if it's one large list from a reliable source that states which stadiums do and don't comply with UEFA requirements.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ComplexRational}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

ComplexRational (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for thanking me. However, some order matches are still incorrect for the third qualifying round draw (main path). Here the guide by clicking on Procedure. Island92 (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries, if I get a chance today after work I'll have a look. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much.--Island92 (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Adjusted. For a final check you can make it anyway. :)--Island92 (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

To make you aware that I adjusted only the number matches pair, not the team wikilinks into the table.--Island92 (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Good morning, I would like you to redo the results pages of the national teams of Guam, Macau, Monaco (keeping the results already presented) and Saar (keeping the games against the B teams), as they are very messy and lacking content that should be there (The case of Macau and Guam are the two reasons, and in the case of Mocaco and Saar, it is the messy table of results). Could you make such changes?

It depends on what time I have but I'll see what I can do. If you want, take a look at Paraguay national football team results (2020–present). It has an easy to use template which might help you improve some of these pages a little easier. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Stevie.

I'm already using the results table template you use, an example was Northern Mariana Islands national football team results, where I reformed the results table using this template. YangerAAS (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There will only be one problem if I continue to reform national team results. It is very likely that the first versions of the reforms will not have or will have a limited number of references. So, I continue with the renovations, would you help me in putting the references? YangerAAS (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries. It would be a lot easier if people had added sources already and you could just copy and paste. If it takes time to add them then it takes time, there is no deadline after all. I find Elo is very useful, you only need to add it once and can reference it 1,000 times in necessary. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey Stevie, are you primarily responsible for creating the New Zealand national football team results pages? YangerAAS (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Well then, would you be patient if I asked you to reset the game tables with the template you showed me?

Example of the template used on the page: Paraguay national football team results (2020–present) YangerAAS (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I only created the most recent page. The other three were created by other people. I have edited all of them so that they are of a consistent style though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk)

Well then, would you be patient if I asked you to reset the game tables with the template you showed me?

Example of the template used on the page: Paraguay national football team results (2020–present) YangerAAS (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@YangerAAS Sorry, it's been a busy day otherwise I'd would've for back to you sooner. I can show you how to do so, yeah. Give me a day or two and I'll sort something out. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey Stevie, I just used the template you showed me on the page New Zealand national football team results (2020–present). YangerAAS (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's great work. Thanks. I see there were a couple of issues with the notes that had been there previously and the fixtures that have been scheduled so I'll work on a fix for that. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. YangerAAS (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@YangerAAS: Hey, hope you are well. I have added a fix which means notes can be added to each of the date, venue, competition and attendance columns. I'll implement it on New Zealand national football team results (2020–present) so that you can see how it works. It's reasonably simple and will work with multiple ways of including footnotes in articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2022 East Ayrshire Council election you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The article 2022 East Ayrshire Council election you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2022 East Ayrshire Council election for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The article 2022 East Ayrshire Council election you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2022 East Ayrshire Council election for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Welcome

Your recent edits

FC vs F.C.

March 2016

Wiki meet

Ways to improve 2000 Wellington Sevens

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Queen of the South Season 2016-17

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Invite to the African Destubathon

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Thank you + invitation

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Scottish Cup

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

League positions by round

Women in Red online editathon on sports

Proposed deletion of 2016–17 Ayr United F.C. season

Scottish League Cup

A page you started (2017–18 Scottish Junior Cup) has been reviewed!

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Women in Red World Contest

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

League tables

KOS v KVX issue

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Discussion at Talk:2018–19 UEFA Europa League#Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Discussion on template data storage

2019–20 West Region Premiership moved to draftspace

Football season page styles

Akane Yamaguchi

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Nomination for deletion of Template:2018 Scottish Women's Premier League table

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Ways to improve Tahiti national football team 1952–79 results

Aboot New Zealand national football team 2020–39 results

Ok but it is still a bit confusing...

Regarding your reverts

Kilmarnock

2020–21 Scottish League Two

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

January 2021

Argentina

UEFA Europa Conference League 2021–22

March 2021

Molde FK

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

Tables over football boxes

Champions of 2020–21 Belgian First Division A - Champions League Pot

UEFA Conference League 2021/22

UEL Qualifying phase and play-off round club coefficients

Cards in National team results

Table format

Help me

Brazil national team results

American Samoa first FIFA international match

Classification for 'A' games breakthrough

Your GA nomination of 1873–74 Scottish Cup

American Samoa venues

Your GA nomination of 1873–74 Scottish Cup

Scottish League Cup

Formatting for international matches

New message from Narutolovehinata5

DYK for 1873–74 Scottish Cup

Concern regarding Draft:Kilmarnock F.C. 5–1 Eintracht Frankfurt

Disambiguation link notification for September 11